What resolution are you showing on screen?
if it is 960x540 at 24 fps it is around 37 MB/s so I can't see how you can't show that with the built in board.....
If it werent possible you wouldn't be able to see any standard resolution video on them neither..

960x540 24fps yes..it is really slow on the built in cards..I just found an Aopen microATX board that has pci and agp slots..I will buy that one now for testing

But the machine I'm using right now to write this has a Crappy SIS embedded video card using 8 MB of share memory.Running WinXP with just 256 MB on an Athlon XP 2000 and it plays 1024x768 8 bit uncompressed without problems.
It doesn't work with higher uncompressed resolutions cause it gets HDD speed limited.
1280x720 HiDef WMV9 works smoothly too......

Obin, are you using OpenGL or DirectX (DirectShow)?

Also were you using the Axiomtek board? What small motherboard were you using?

Jason: I fully agree. Audio needs to be sorted out fast and on a
pretty long recording as well to see if it drifts and if so how bad.

Hi all, first off, I've been following the board for a while and have been really impressed by everything everyone has done so far.

Obin, I'm not exactly sure if this will fulfil all your needs, but I found something with alot of the right stuff here:
http://www.rei.ricoh.com/download/products_scu/SCU_Product_FB8M.pdf
The model is the FB8M

According to http://www.bwi.com/scripts/site/site_product.php3/id/9689/, this board is subject to a minimum order, but perhaps you can get single units elsewhere.

<<<-- Originally posted by Obin Olson : does anyone know of a good microatx board that has AGP and PCI or pci-x? -->>>

Conor,

I'm not sure that the board you spec'd is going to help out Obin, and then again, I'm not sure that Obin is necessarily having a problem with slow on-board graphics.

Even though the board you listed has an AGP slot, the graphics it's using is the Intel Extreme 2 which is embedded in the 855GME chipset. All these small boards that are high-quality now are using this 855GME/6300ESB chipset.

The Intel Extreme Graphics 2 engine is pretty nice. The only downside might be that it works off of the main system memory, so you'll want the fastest RAM you can put in (DDR333 for these chipsets).

Here's the specs:

http://www.intel.com/design/graphics2/extreme_graphics2_brochure.pdf

As you can see, they're pretty good, especially for embedded graphics. Maybe they're not a NV40 or X800, but I don't think we need anything better than Geforce2 or Radeon 7500 for these apps, do we?But the machine I'm using right now to write this has a Crappy SIS embedded video card using 8 MB of share memoryIs that shared with the main system memory (any type of UMA), or is it dedicated graphics memory?

If so, then again, this makes me think it's another problem, not a chipset/graphics problem.

I guess when we find out if Obin's using DirectX/OpenGL or what, we'll find out.

BTW, for 2D graphics, the Intel Extreme 2 Graphics engine is optimized for DirectShow, GDI+ and GDI.

yes, it is shared with the main memory.That leaves 248 MB for the OS. :(
Also if someone is interest the memory is DDR 266 and the video processor clock is 133 MHZ.

lso if someone is interest the memory is DDR 266 and the video processor clock is 133 MHZ.So then the Axiomtek and Kontron embedded boards should be fine, because they're using the 855GME, so you can use up to DDR333 for faster graphics performance (at least on the Kontron board).

Hmm, the problem with these onboard scheemes (and cards in general) is that there are so many ways they work, and many onboarders are less than impressive. So sometimes you may have to program different subroutine sets to get most of the cards working at optimal performance (something like the GAPI API does this for you). You wouldn't think this was a problem in 2D, but it is possible that the chip UMA is upsetting the stream lined pci->memory->cache->processor and back to disk chain, and causing stalls and misses. Somewtimes it is a bios issue, and short of getting the MB manufacturer to do a bios upgrade, there maybe nothing that canbe done with the board.

Juan, good to hear that my old SIS 8MB might be upto it ;)

the only hardware problem or limitation I can think of is if the video were going thru PCI bus, but even in that case adding 37 MB/s wouldn't clog it so, I give up.

In a modern chipset, the video shouldn't be traveling throught the PCI bus.

For instance, with the 855GME, the video is on the northbridge which is directly connected to the RAM. So we're talking for DDR333 @ 2.7GB/s, that's a whole lot more than 37MB/s!

Again, I'm wondering what Obin is using, since he was having tearing problems before, and using any double-buffered system and OpenGL/DirectX, there shouldn't be any tearing problems, or they should be extremely minimal.

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Lohman : Jason: I fully agree. Audio needs to be sorted out fast and on a
pretty long recording as well to see if it drifts and if so how bad. -->>>

There are external, but pricey, devices that can accomplish this-word clocks. As far as just testing to see what the drift is - even once you find out, I don't think there will be much you can do about it as long as picture and sound are on seperate devices.

What I mean is, you can't just slap a crystal synch motor on this camera. A device to keep video and seperate audio in synch is such a specialized piece of equipment, I don't think it will be possible to build an adhoc replacement for it.

You could, I suppose, feed audio and video into the computer and have it keep synch for you. That probably would not be difficult, except that it would eat into your processing speed for video preview.

You also could set up a seperate computer that did nothing but keep synch between video and audio. It wouldn't need as much as the recording computer because it wouldn't have to record video. On the other hand, that will limit your mobility even more, increase the number of crew you will need, and possibly cost as much as buying a word clock.

Once, or maybe I should say if (that would be up to Rob S., or Obin's guy I supposed) the software reached an advanced enough iteration it should be able to take incoming video and audio, keep it in synch, and capture it to a quicktime/avi file in synch like a firestore. That will solve the synch problem right there (even if your also capturing to a seperate backup like DAT or DV or HDD or whatever). But I don't think we'll be able to do that right out of the gate. What do you think, Rob?

May I ask, given that the CMOS cameras (for example, one of the SI range) use an electronic shutter with a set clock-speed, how synch can become an issue. Surely if the timing of the images is electronically controlled, and, say, if you record to DAT or hard disk, then image and sound will remain in synch (once you align the clap/red-bleep).

As for the Motherboard problem, the FB8M I suggested is the only one I could find that was small and had a PCI-X slot for those fancy-dan framegrabbers. Does anybody have links to any other ones?

If film cameras have been doing sync-sound with crystal motors for the last 30 years (at least), and now we have a CMOS camera that has a clock synthesizer on it that can go down to the X.xxxMhz (3 decimal places) in accuracy, I think it's a little strange if you can't keep sync, at least for 10-15 minutes at a time, with an external DAT.

Hi all. I was gone for a week at the Vision show in Stuttgart. In answer to your frame grabber questions, there are many 64 bit/66MHz frame grabbers out there. Add Leutron to the list. The issues are: cost, features, cost, OS compatibility, cost, SDK tools, cost, camera support. Did I mention cost?

We can bundle the Epix FGs for $500 with our cameras including $200 worth of cables and power supply. The 64 bit should bundle for $1K. My apologies to all for their problems shipping their 64 bit product. I've been hearing more optimistic delivery dates than those posted but this board is clearly a problem for them. The reasons (besides cost, which I think I've covered) we like them are: Good GUI (for machine vision) and an SDK for both Windoze and Linux. Good external triggering. Responsive customer support. Excellent color tools.

We have worked with many of the others. Some are specialized, like Datacube with lots of FPGA and RAM for $4K+. Or built in SCSI RAID controllers like IO Industries ($$$).

Others are just competent FGs, like Eurosys and Matrox. Not really cheap, but they seem to work well...... and get delivered. I can't bundle any of the others right now so expect to spend $1200-$2K including cables and power supply plus tools (some of the SDKs are not cheap) but I will ship a camera to any FG company that wants to support our cameras.

The alternative is to go gigabit since our interface supports data packing (2 12 bit pixels in 3 bytes) over the gigE interface. It also has a large enough buffer to implement the every other frame and average the burst bandwidth. (1920x1080x30fps x 12 bits = 750Mbps, under the 800Mbps for the interface). There are SDKs for both OSes.

Anyone out there waiting for the 64 bit FG and not wanting to wait anymore for Epix, I'll do a credit for them (based on the amount paid, not our full price since I'm discounting to this group).

If film cameras have been doing sync-sound with crystal motors for the last 30 years (at least), and now we have a CMOS camera that has a clock synthesizer on it that can go down to the X.xxxMhz (3 decimal places) in accuracy, I think it's a little strange if you can't keep sync, at least for 10-15 minutes at a time, with an external DAT.

It's very easy for DAT to drift away from clock speed unless there are some specific devices, like a word clock or something similar sending a synch signal from camera to recorder. It doesn't happen as much with HDDs or solid-state devices, but it can happen quite easily with DAT - one of the reasons sound recorders are happy to be moving away from DAT recorders.

I've been hearing more optimistic delivery dates than those posted but this board is clearly a problem for them.Sorry Steve, I wasn't trying to spread FUD about the shipping dates on the EPIX, the February time frame was what their sales rep told me when I called to ask about some features in XCAP.

BTW, it's great to see you back. Hope you had a great trip.

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Nordhauser : The alternative is to go gigabit since our interface supports data packing (2 12 bit pixels in 3 bytes) over the gigE interface. It also has a large enough buffer to implement the every other frame and average the burst bandwidth. (1920x1080x30fps x 12 bits = 750Mbps, under the 800Mbps for the interface). There are SDKs for both OSes. -->>>

Hi, I asked this of your sales people already, but can you give an indication of the price of the 1920HD GigE package (I assume that includes Camera, C-link cable, CL-GigE box, SDK, but will gladly accept correction)? I was kind of baffled by the response I got, in that the GigE version was more expensive despite not coming with a FG card. I naturally assume I have misunderstood, so better to ask again. Thanks.

As for sound, perhaps a simple solution would be to front- and end-clap long takes for two synchronisation points. You can then adjust any shift more easily in post, with a little simple editing. That is, if there is any.

The GigE solution comes with a framegrabber that hooks up via Gigabit ethernet. So it takes in a cameralink signal and outputs over Gigabit ethernet.

Welcome Markus, good to have you here.

Steve, I think the problem with the Gige, is that, as I unbderstand it, it costs as much as a frame grabber to implement, it is not a hundred or two hundred doller solution. So the piont in buying it can become less attractive.

Some clarity on our gigabit solution. Right now we are using an external interface box (about 3"x4"x2") that converts our camera link camera into gigabit ethernet. That output is true ethernet - can go through switches and hubs and can be received by any gigabit card. For maximum performance, you need an Intel Pro1000 compatible card since we have custom drivers for it that will run continuous 800Mbps data. The serial port used to control the camera over the camera link side of things is virtual at the computer end - the data goes back to the camera over ethernet and is converted into true camera link (with hardware serial communications) at the interface box.

Right now the cost is more than our 32 bit frame grabber bundle but will decrease when we integrate the interface directly into the camera (underway). I will discuss prices off-line with anyone needing the specifics.

ASA 25

Until Markus tells us the sensor and configuration, it is all conjecture, but there are tremendous differences in sensor sensitivity. A good deal is related to the pixel size. Our SI-1300 has a 5.2 micron square pixel or 27 sq microns of sensing area. The SI-3300 has a 3.2 micron pixel or 10.24 square microns of sensing area. The SI-1300 is *Much* more sensitive. It is worse than it sounds because the capacitor and active circuitry for a pixel are fixed in size, so they take up a larger proportion of the possible sensing area in smaller pixels which reduces the fill factor - the amount of the pixel area available for photon sensing.

If the camera uses a global shutter, more transistors are needed for shuttering, which also reduces the fill factor This is why the IBIS-5 is much less sensitive than the Micron 1.3Mpix, even though it has larger pixels 6.7 micron).

The ideal sensor for this group would have large pixels, a good global shutter with minimal leakage and a Bayer filter. With this magic combination you get good sensitivity, no rolling shutter skew, limited DOF and single chip costs.

The ideal sensor for this group would have large pixels, a good global shutter with minimal leakage and a Bayer filter. With this magic combination you get good sensitivity, no rolling shutter skew, limited DOF and single chip costs.Oh well, you can't have everything :)

At least the ProCamHD 3560 sensor is definitely a great step in that direction.

what camera and capture setup are you using marcus/conor?

At the moment, I'm not. I was on the verge of buying an XL2 when I stumbled on this board. Since I have some time, I'm exploring the possibility of buying a set-up like this instead, since I'm primarily interested in full production.

it just occured to me that we could use a numberpad (like the mini keyboards that people use to crunch numbers) as something that could be attached to a camera body and allow on camera control... here's a link to what i'm talking about..

http://numberpads.com/products/numberpads/mulitmedia_np1.htm

maybe someone already thought about this..

Actually yes . . .

Try this: http://www.xkeys.com/xkeys/xkstick.php

It also comes with software to map the keys and mouse clicks

Hey Ben I am strongly considering buying a sumix IBIS-5 camera. I know that this is not going to be a final version camera. Eventually I would like to be shooting on the Altasens but I need to start getting something put together now and hopefully shift the altasens into the workflow once its setup. I am wondering if you could just give me a little sum up of your experience with the ibis-5.

I would seriously not purchase anything at this point in time. The Altasens sensor-based products are right around the corner here in the next two-three months.

Also beware that they won't be cheap. I believe that Steve has already mentioned here that you should expect to pay $4500 for the camera with that sensor. So if you go out and purchase another $1000 for the Sumix, you're getting yourself that much further behind.

A lot of ground covered. Yes there are relatively cheap fast lenses:
http://www.navitar.com/zoom/cctv_do2595.htm 25mm f0.95
http://www.navitar.com/zoom/cctv_do1795.htm 17mm f0.95

These are 1" c mount and sell for $380 and $450 single piece. There is also a 50mm listed for $725. They will have a narrower FOV for smaller sensors.
These are machine vision lenses so they are not in the same league with Schneider and such. It depends on the sensor pitch (like film grain) how much of an issue it is.

IBIS-5A. If you want a 12 bit A/D, that is what we have. The internal 10 bit only makes things worse. Global shutter is a good thing for sure. Compromises are made.

Rai and Markus, my hat is off to you - you completed the camera project and are using it for its purpose. That is a real accomplishment. It is up to you as to whether you want to use or add to the collective information transfer of this group.

Machine vision lenses are not worth the expense; you can find good cinema lenses for less. I think I paid in the US$200-300 range for my vintage (but never used) Cinegon.

Rob, I wouldn't recommend jumping on the IBIS at the moment. It's just not ready for film production -- it's extremely insensitive, the global shutter mode cuts your exposure further and is thus totally worthless, and better things are right around the corner. It's been fun to experiment with, and it does have an interesting look, but it's rather frustrating at times...

The Altasens models should be coming out pretty soon, and then you'll be able to choose from a few different vendors. For example, if you need CameraLink, Steve and SI will have you covered. If you want FW800, Sumix will hook you up. There also may be price adjustments based on competition.

I'd sit back and relax for a couple months and keep working on the script. :)

And to Soeren: The DOF is not the same as a standard resolution video camera with a 2/3" sensor. Remember that higher resolution will expose smaller circles of confusion. So if you have a 2/3" sensor with a resolution of 160x120, it will look like everything's in focus all the time. If you have a 2/3" sensor with 2 megapixel resolution, you'll spend a lot more time focusing...

What is this obsession with 35mm DOF, anyway? A lot of 35mm cinematographers would kill for better DOF! To my eye, 720p on a 2/3" sensor gets me shallow DOF when I want it, and deep focus when I need it. It's the perfect size. People on these boards spend way too many hours slaving to make things look like Panavision. Why not embrace this unique format for all its beautiful properties?

- ben

Actually 2/3" format is about the same as 16mm which passes for a lot of professional products all the time on T.V., and nobody complains about DOF problems.

I agree though, 35mm DOF is nice for some things, but for general use, documentaries, etc., it's an extreme pain-in-the-butt.

Ben, thanks (again ;o) for all the information you're sharing. However it seems you misunderstood me in regard to the DOF thing.. it was just to clarify things for me - meant as a question more or less. It's not that I'm "obsessed" with 35mm sensor sizes/DOF or anything. And of course you're right about the DOF differences when it comes to the different resolutions. However I meant the uhm.. dunno how to put it... the "overall rough DOF effect". ;-P

I'm fine with 2/3"... however I'd like to have slightly more res than "only" 720p. What about this (well sorry - although I'm not obsessed with 35mm DOF there _is_ some sort of obsession here with anamorphics ;o) -> all of these "easy to use" sensors (when it comes to handling all the data etc.) sport at least 1280 x 1024... by using an anamorphic adapter you wouldn't be far from 1080p (using some high quality scaling in post ;o). So instead of dismissing 304 "lines" of resolution simply use the full frame and an anamorphic lense. (yeah I know that you'll loose some light because of it)

With the Altasens you ARE at 1920x1080, no need to try.

Soeren,

I'm a big anamorphics fan as well -- I have a Kowa 1.75x lens I use for shooting 2.35:1 with 4x3 sensors... But I'm not planning on using it in HD, just because I want as little glass in front of the lens as possible. It's not a light loss issue, it's a chromatic aberration issue and a softness issue.

Also, I've come to really like the 16x9 format. I thought briefly of shooting full frame with a 16x9 anamorphic adapter, but I'd rather shoot clean... Personally, resolution is not a big deal -- 720p is good enough for me... I'm just excited to be shooting with a frame larger than 720x480...

Hey guys thanks for the replies. I understand the sentiments of not blowing 1000 on an ibis-5 when in the end it isn't what any of us want. My idea all along has been to wait for the Altasens. However, I have a script now and need to start raising some money, having an HD raw system was going to be one of my big selling points. So basically I need a few pieces of eye candy that 'prove' that I have that system. What I was hoping was that buy buying a cheaper camera I could get a couple of test shots while learning more about these systems for when the altasens came out. Like I said, I am still weighing all options, which is why I posted.

I think a big problem for people like me is that I come from a film making background not an engineering background. While I do
dabble with all sorts of engineering related things the nuance of a really good bayer de-mosaicer is beyond me. So without something in my hands to work with and test its all just speculation. I really appreciate all the work everyone has been going to, it has been a huge education for me, I'm just itching to get my hands dirty.

I agree with Ben on the DOF. A really well composed shot with really shallow DOF is amazing looking, but its like morphing or matrix effects. If it is over used its worthless. When you are making a movie its important to take things shot by shot. You should concern yourself with only what is needed for that shot. So if you only have 10 shots that will require intense DOF there are ways to fudge it (use a longer lens, mess with it in post, ect...) I really loved the idea of a 35 adapter at first but then realized that in the end it probably isn't necesary if enough time is given to what the shots are going to be and how they will be achieved.

As far as the anamorphics are concerned I agree that it is a really viable option, I just finished shooting a project on 35 anamorphic and it was beautiful (and insanely expensive) I am not aware of any c-mount anamorphics, which puts us back to an adapter of some sort.

Ok, I been following the forum for a few month now.
and see that people say that this forum is to share information and then back up when is it is the time to release it.
I'm going to spend my time and my very low badget ( all from my pocket) to build a camera and if I do it taken information from the forum I will be devoted to it posting step by step my progess.
please practice waht you say, that is the way it should be.

Ben Syverson please Is there the beta software available?
Let see if any one here is willing to share the secrets of any working set up.
So right now we only have available altasens and ib5a any other recomendations?
I know I can build a very small computer but waht we are talking here is waht kind of interface to use that depends from the cmos you actually buy.
I have read that there is a camera working wiht firewire interface but at the moment I haven't found any cmos wiht taht interface.
Ok I'm open to hear from you guys.

I'm actually filming with super16 and I love it enough dof at 1.4
so I can live at the moment with 3/4 inch and when a good 1inch cmos came to play yust buy it and snap it on to your camera.and go shut that it is waht all of this is about.

Marto,

My software was available on my website, but someone hacked into our server recently, so it'll take me a bit to get it back up there... I should remind people that I'm not developing a comprehensive image capture application -- my software is a free After Effects plug-in for de-bayering.

There are no "secrets" here, despite what you might think from reading some peoples' posts. Rob, Obin and I have been very up-front about the systems we put together and how we're going about it.

For instance, I'm a pretty strong advocate against mini-PCs and Cameralink. My opinion is that if you use an interface that's available on a laptop (such as Firewire or Gigabit Ethernet), there's no need for a custom built mini-PC with an overly expensive Cameralink PCI card.

Sumix is designing a Firewire800 Altasens camera, but just like everyone else using the Altasens chip, they're at the mercy of the chipmaker. From what I understand, Altasens has promised to deliver to manufacturers sometime in December, which should give us release dates of January or February. (?) Sumix has also stated interest in developing for Linux and Mac OS X, both of which endear them to me as well...

The Altasens and the IBIS-5A are both 2/3", and have a very similar size to Super16, so you'll probably like the image characteristics.

- ben

Thnks Ben
waht you think about this
micron MT9M413
1,280H x 1,024V (1,310,720 pixels)
12.0µm x 12.0µm 19.67mm
0–500+ frames/sec. (full array) >10,000 frames/sec. with partial scan
660 MB/sec. (master clock 66 MHz)
<150mW @ 60 frames/sec. <500mW @ 500 frames/sec.
+3.3V 10-bit digital through 10 parallel ports (color or monochrome)
TrueSNAP freeze-frame electronic shutter
280-pin ceramic PGA High Speed

I know waht you mean but where I can find a firewire altasens cmos censor sumix sells usb? do you know when it'll be released?
will you be willing to send me the plug ing by email or chat/
thanks

Hello Board! I thought I would introduce myself and say hello. I have been with DVinfo.net since it's birth many years ago. Chris Hurd being a friend of mine I make this board my forum home-base. Chris kept telling me to check out the Alternative Imaging Methods forum for some time, so one day I did while thinking what so special about this forum that Chris keeps pushing me to it. Well, to my surprise I knew why, the first clip I saw i couldn't believe it. Since then I have anonymously watched things develop. I have told Chrisa while ago that the alternative board section is and should be voted number 1 in DV magazine as being the most cutting edge publicly on display in HD/digital cinema research and design. I hope they do this. This place is cutting edge. I'm from the film side, that's where i learned my craft, Since the early eighties I have been also an advocate and supporter of electronic cinematography long before any of my collegues would even look at it. High-Def has had me hooked since I was 17 back in 1987 where I got to have my first use of it, and ever since then addicted to it's resolving power etc. That was also the year that Julia & Julia with Turner and Sting camera out, this was the first HD movie I saw on the major big screens in USA. It was in its fetus stage compared to the infant it is today. I have worked with the best from Showscan 60fps ( my favorite ), Iwerks to where we are today and in between. Many years ago, I wanted to build my own HD like system, but you all know that up tell recently it was cost prohibitive as well the technology was not off the shelve as it is becoming. When it comes to technology I am best at putting the pieces together and designing a workable system from components. My limitation is I don't build CCD,Cmos,circuit boards or write software. I have the highest respect for those that can.

Until yesterday I have had only two clips from this board. The two consisted of a flower pot on a buildings porch and surrounding parking lot. The other was of a guy with his watch and a red pickup truck. I have know idea the source except the link is from here. When I had put this on a 30+ foot screen it was remarkable many months ago and my jaw dropped. Not only because of the quality, but because the fact that is was done from a camera in the palm of their hand from a USB cable I believe. Again since I don't know who filmed it or what was used. I am guessing.... The quality on a screen looked like film, actually it reminded me of late 70's early 80's 35mm 5247 stock that had color issues. What's crazy is those clips are dupes that are not anywhere near the originals.

I feel those of you that are doing this are ground breaking a path that will spawn all sorts of small camera manufactures like we had 20-30-40 years ago for 8mm-16mm 35mm motion picture cameras. Years ago I was speaking in LA on the future of Cinema and told the audience that one day people will be able to by off the shelve CCDs components memory card recorders etc and piece them together into a working component digital cinema system. I had know idea it was going to start to happen so soon.

Here we are today- Why have I not bothered to post is I had nothing to offer to help you and felt it was better to listen and read in this case. My experience is, and many including Chris Hurd will back me up is I know imagery. I have had the privilege to work and be exposed to some of the highest level of quality. At Showscan many years ago when Douglas Trumbull owned it, this was detailed motion picture quality at it's best. Sony's special HD devision would bring cameras in to he lab and do extremely high-res tests of ShowScan in the early 90's, unfortunately it spoiled me to the point my eye becomes to damn picky and sensitive to quality issues. A problem with many cinematographers as well. Since I live just 45 minutes from ASC clubhouse, since I was teenager i have had the privilege to be in the Company of Daviau, Zsigmond, Wexler, Kovacs, Burum etc since I was a kid. That was my film School. Of course I have never got to talk to Storaro, ggrrrrrr...... He is a master of color and light.

Yesterday, Markus Rupprecht came over to the FX1 section and posted his clips. The one with the lady was excellent, it's a good selling piece for this kind of technology setup . I will have plenty of stupid questions that I am sure has been answered many times.


First question I have:
What would it take to get 720P 10bit at 30fps and 24fps. Can a laptop be used for this? What brand cameras are out there that are proven. Lastly could I get a list of links to clips other then the one's I have mentioned.

Thanks in advance.


Michael Pappas
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
http://www.pbase.com/arrfilms
http://www.pbase.com/PappasArtsHD
http://www.PappasArt.com
Costa Mesa, Ca, USA

Hey Michael,

Welcome on board! :) I agree that this technology is extremely exciting -- from my perspective, it could change quite a lot in the industry within the next 12-18 months...

Now, to answer your question... The datarates at the sizes you mention are extremely reasonable:
720p @ 24fps, 10bit: 26.36 Megabytes (MB, not Mb) per second
720p @ 30fps, 10bit: 32.95 MB/sec

It's within the realm of USB2 and Firewire400, but most of the newer cameras will be using Firewire800, Gigabit Ethernet, or CameraLink (ugh).

The clips you mention were shot by Obin (I believe), using a CameraLink-based camera tethered to a desktop computer.

As far as I know, I'm the only one here using a laptop for recording -- everyone else is using desktops or custom hardware. Personally, I think laptops are the clear way to go. Desktops are too big, and custom rigs are too much trouble and too difficult to upgrade.

Sumix (http://www.sumix.com/) is working on a FW800 camera using the Altasens 3560 (http://www.altasens.com/), the same sensor that is going into the Kinetta. (http://www.kinetta.com/) Of course, the Kinetta will cost about 10X (literally) the price of the Sumix camera. The Sumix is the cam I'm excited about. The biggest advantage of FW800 is that you can make the camera bus-powered, for laptop shooting. In the meantime, I'm shooting with the same sensor as Markus and Rai, although I'm not quite as jazzed about it as they are.

Any other questions?

- ben

Ben I found this camera it is using IBIS5a and have firewire interface.

http://www.isgchips.com/Templates/t_camera.htm

I don't know witch cmos is better altacens or IBIS5a
would be this camers sonthing you would recomend?
thanks
Hi michael I'm in my beginins stages of my project and willing to share any information I know.
check sumix.com and micron.com

Dear Marto:

Altasens :)

Sincerely,
Ben Syverson

are you using IBIS5a ? by firewire?

I got it, Altasens
dont get mad my friend

I went mad long ago. :)

I'm using an IBIS-5A over USB2... (The Sumix 150-C)

have you check the link I posted it is a IBIS5a with firewire any opinions about it?
tahnks
sorry about my spelling it is a figth I have with my self too.

Marto, I checked the link, but my opinion of any IBIS-5A based camera is pretty low right now, with the Altasens just around the corner. If you absolutely can't wait, then do what you gotta do -- otherwise, hang on for another couple months... From what I've seen, there's a world of difference between the IBIS and the Altasens.

definatly I will have it into acount but I have a big project coming out the next month that I would like to do it digital.
waht budget are we talking about for a setup like yours I'm maybe willing to spend the mony anyway and then change to some thing better if I can snik the cmos in the production budget.
thanks

Hey Guys,

Nice to see things heating up here :-)

BTW, I thought I'd bring up another interesting point again that kind of fell off quickly about a month ago.

DNG (Digital Negative Format)-While Photoshop was the only supporter of this open RAW format when it was announced last month, there have now been a bunch of new commercial converts to the list. Phase One is going to be releasing their RAW conversion software using the .DNG format, as well as some photo-mangement solutions.

So the message is this: If you don't want to fuss with RAW bayer demosaicers, don't! Take your RAW files and put a .DNG header on them (TIFF-EP with a couple extra tags specific to DNG, easy stuff really), and you can open them up with Photoshop's bayer converter, Phase One's bayer converter (soon), and with these two on board I'm sure we'll see Bibble come on board, and Yarc Plus, Dcraw, etc., etc.

I've used Phase One's software, and I must say it's very, very nice stuff. Kind of like operating a telecine suite on your footage (for right now it's from my Canon D60).

So anyways, this isn't hard to do, and it might make our lives a whole lot easier. I know that Scott said that you could take the .IHD files his software outputs and translate those to .DNG if you want, but also if you simply record the RAW information off the camera, you only have to put the .DNG header on it for it to be recognized by the conversion software, the only caveat being that these will have to be sequential files, and not a big binary RAW file or an .IHD that has multiple images embedded within it. So there might be a hit on drive performance, right now it's too early to say.

So anyways, .DNG-I think this is a really good format for us to embrace that can make our lives much easier on the raw-bayer conversion end of things.